Talk:Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleLockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 22, 2017.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 17, 2013Good article nomineeListed
June 22, 2013WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 23, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 24, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Lockheed C-130 Hercules (pictured) entered service with the RAAF in 1958, making Australia the first country after the United States to operate the aircraft?
Current status: Featured article
Discussions prior to creating in article space

Article development

Hi mate, was thinking we could collaborate on this one given its potential size, your familiarity with similar articles, and the research from expanding the 86 Wing article still fresh in my mind. How would you feel about me dumping here what I know well and have available from Stephens and other sources to provide a skeleton, which you could flesh out with Wilson (I could probably get the book from the Mitchell but if it's just as easy for you to do it, feel free...) As well as providing more detail on acquisition, I'd expect Wilson to neatly fill the gap in the Herc's service between 1964 and 1987 when 86 Wing was disbanded, and from the '90s onwards we've got McPhedran, APDR, Australian Aviation, Air Force News, etc, etc. If we want to go into squadron-level stuff I think you've got Eather and I can get hold of the transport volume of Units of the RAAF from the Mitchell, likewise the official histories of Australia in the South East Asian wars if we need them. I also have my own copy of Air Base Richmond which was a mine of info for 86 Wing from the time the Herc entered service until the book was published in 1991 (almost the same as Wilson!) The other thing to consider is whether we'd want to produce a medium-density article to get to B/GA level in the short term, and then consider expanding to A/FA (for which I'm sure it has the potential) or go for broke at the outset -- perhaps that's something to decide after perusing Wilson...;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, That all sounds great. I've got the transport edition of the Units of the RAAF series, but will need to visit the NLA to access Wilson's book. I'm going to be busy next weekend, but can get cracking after that - I favour shooting for A-class, and then seeing how things go given that sourcing might be a bit tricky if there aren't any comprehensive post-1990/91 accounts available. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dumped first-draft material as discussed. Actually could be a bit better than first draft, I think the formatting and references are in good shape and even without Wilson the level of detail might be sufficient for B/GA (still needs the infobox and perhaps an extra line or two in the lead). A fair bit of the operational service section is lifted from other articles I've done but polished into a Hercules-centric narrative with additional tidbits; the acquisition stuff is pretty much all new. We're also fortunate to have decent images of all four models -- I've picked ones that stand out for me (like the one you chose for the lead, too). Anyway, see what you think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks really good. I've just added some material on the acquisition of the other variants and the retirement of the C-130Hs. In the longer run there's probably a fair bit more to be said about the C-130Js - the RAAF was the lead customer for this variant, and apparently had to put a lot of effort into fixing their many problems. I think that this could 'go live' pretty soon - I'll add the infobox tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks mate, the material from Military Aircraft of Australia helped a lot; although I tended to agree about going for A-Class with Wilson's Dakota, Hercules and Caribou material, and the suggested additions re. the J model, I think we definitely have a B/GA article here right now, once the infobox comes, and may as well go for that in the short term. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Was there anything more to do on 86 Wing? I thought I'd nom for ACR once the GAN is closed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's good to go. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • As I've said, I like the one you've chosen as a lead.
  • The A model one, aside from being a nice shot in itself, is I believe the only PD one at AWM. P00448.137 would be useful for the acquisition section but is currently AWM copyright; I've already sent them a note querying if it might not be RAAF or US Government, and thus PD, so we'll see.
  • The E model one, aside from being a nice rendering of that particular Herc livery, is I think the only PD C-130E one we have. P02320.015 is a nice leftwards-facing shot in Vietnam, but is marked "copyright status to be assessed"; I've also queried that with the AWM.
  • The next shot down is just one I liked from the MEAO but not wed to it; it's obviously an H model but not I think marked as such.
  • I also like the J one taking off but perhaps it'd be worth using a leftwards-facing J shot and having two on the left and then two on the right to keep the "inwards-facing" concept but also have some balance. Just thinking out loud as we should finalise things soon... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really like the E model photo which does a good job of illustrating this colour scheme and showing the aircraft at work. For the H model, File:RAAF C-130 Iraq 2008.JPG might be a better choice, but there's a lot to be said for the current photo given that it shows some of the ground crew needed to support these aircraft. File:RAAF C-130H landing March 2011.JPG is a nice photo, but has no particular historical value. None of the J model photos really grabs me, but the current one is the best of the lot IMO (File:RAAF Hercules CBR Gilbert-3.jpg is OK, but seems to have a barrier in the foreground (note the magpie viewed only from the shoulders up) - if this was taken from where I think it was taken, it would be part of the wall on the roof of a multi-story carpark). To cut a long story short, I'm happy with the current photos. Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the H model, how about File:Australian C-130 H being unloaded at Tallil Air Base in April 2003.jpeg - I just found and uploaded this photo, and while it's not great technically, its a fairly dramatic photo of the aircraft at a forward air base during the Iraq War (note that the aircraft is being unloaded with its propellers still running). Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Had a go with 2 left, 2 right, including the Gilbert one (not sure what you meant about that one, looked all good to me, or perhaps I missed something). I quite like that last one you mentioned as well but it is a bit dirty. Even if we don't end up using it in this article I might give it a clean up some time and upload again... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

I think that this is ready to be moved into article-space (via copy-and-paste rather than a move given that this page's history also contains the development of other articles). However, I also have a comment about the current text, and ideas for further development

  • "The Australian Government haggled with the RAAF over the price" - this is a bit confusing. The usual procedure is that the RAAF provides a submission to their Minister and/or Cabinet seeking agreement to a purchase, and for the Minister/Cabinet to respond to this (after taking advice from other relevant government departments, and especially Treasury). I presume that what happened is that the Minister/Cabinet queried the RAAF's submission (with Treasury probably being the source of the 'three is enough' argument) and suggested purchasing a smaller number of aircraft, but the RAAF managed to prove its case.
    • Yeah, Stephens doesn't go into that much detail. I think about all we could do is substitute "expressed concern" for "haggled with the RAAF" (which I admit was a bit cheeky!)
  • In regards to further development, the article should cover the use of C-130s in the maritime search and rescue role (including, from memory, tracking the North Korean vessel involved in the Pong Su incident), any significant accidents, and (if possible) an explanation for why the RAAF has such a good safety record with this type.
    • Re. SAR, I reckon I can find something; re. the safety record, we mention "accident-free flying hours" a few times but not sure I've seen a specific explanation for it...
  • The material on the acquisition of the various types could be fleshed out in the longer run, and any significant upgrades could be noted (I'll try to find material on these topics). Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re-jigged a bit more, partly in response to your suggestions above. Unless you can spot something I've stuffed up, I think we move into article space and ask for B assessment (and then GAN?) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, what does Roylance say about the evacuation from the Gulf in 1990-91? David Horner's official history volume says that C-130s were placed on alert for this task (with two being held at Cocos Island and later Singapore in January 1991), but that they were never needed. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Royalnce stated that C-130s and 707s deployed to evacuate people, and that a team from No. 3 RAAF Hospital accompanied them but "happily they were not needed". I read this as the aircraft performing the evacuation but the medical team not being required; looks like he might have meant that the aircraft weren't required either... Do you want to re-word or just drop it? Not too fussed either way... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tweak it to what the official history says: the aircraft were deployed, they just never made it to the Middle East which is presumably what he was getting at. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done - though hopefully it's not too long winded. Did you want to do the honours by moving this into article-space? (which seems fair given that you wrote the bulk of it). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see it as very much a joint effort...;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 17:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review:

  • The toolbox checks out.
  • Susans, Wing Commander M.R. (ed.) (1990).": I assume this is "Wing Commander M.R. Susans", but "Wing Commander" seems out of place. - Dank (push to talk)
  • The image files check out.
  • "the first operator of the Hercules after the United States": doesn't sound quite right to my ear. How about this? "the first to purchase the Hercules from the United States"
    • That could sound as though Australia was the first operator in the world; it was the second, after the US began operating them. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Hercules became synonymous with disaster relief in Australia and the Pacific region, as well as overseas peacekeeping efforts": Also doesn't sound quite right.
    • Suggestion? Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't sound right to me to be "synonymous" with two completely different things. "associated", maybe. - Dank (push to talk)
        • I've just tweaked this to a more literal statement. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Synonymous" was intended to convey that they were well known to the public for their association with disaster relief (something that's in the source -- I'd say that from own observation too but I might be biased) -- anyway I don't mind the more literal or conservative wording in the lead now, we do convey the "public consciousness" thing in the main body at one point, and I might tweak another part to reinforce it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was looking for a replacement with greater cargo capacity and longer range, which would better facilitate the deployment and supply of Australian forces.": It's not clear to me what "which" modifies. How about this? "... longer range to better facilitate ..."
  • "Among the mission's proposals was to acquire Lockheed C-130 Hercules transports to replace the Dakota.": Inverting that to put the subject first would give: "To acquire Lockheed C-130 Hercules transports to replace the Dakota was among the mission's proposals." That's not wrong, but "Acquiring" wouldn't force the reader to backtrack. Your word order is fine, but either substitute "aquiring" or go with: "One mission proposal was to acquire ..."
    • Does "One of the mission's proposals was to acquire Lockheed C-130 Hercules transports to replace the Dakota." work for you? Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "maneuverability": Which variety of English?
    • Heh, it's supposed to be Aust/BritEng, but maybe my new spell-checker's still set on AmEng... ;-) Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mustering of flight engineer": I think clearer would be "a flight engineer was added to each crew", and do something similar for "loadmaster"
    • I'd prefer that we make clear the idea of a category/mustering. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure most readers won't know that meaning of the word, so if you use it, give them a clue what it means. - Dank (push to talk)
        • I'm tempted to replace this with 'position' or 'role', but it's not quite the same thing given that a mustering also involves the person first having a set of specific qualifications. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think I'd prefer the term "aircrew category", which should be clearer than "mustering" and more precise than "position". I've also linked the categories in question, which I probably should've done in the first place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Hercules' twenty-tonne freight capacity—compared to three-and-a-half tonnes in a Dakota—and its various systems for delivering cargo, necessitated a specialist crew member to make weight-and-balance calculations and oversee loading and despatch." Your call, but I think this would be easier to parse: A specialist crew member was needed to make weight-and-balance calculations and oversee loading and despatch for the Hercules' twenty-tonne freight capacity (compared to three-and-a-half tonnes in a Dakota) and for its various systems for delivering cargo. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This purchase did not go ahead, with the Government ordering": Instead, the government ordered
  • "their newly converted Australian pilots": I'm not sure what "converted" means. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought I'd used "converted" earlier but it was "trained", so gone with that. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting in one C-130A remaining grounded for almost a year": grounding one C-130A for almost a year.
  • "at the commencement of the Konfrontasi between Indonesia and Malaysia": I'd go with "at the commencement of the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation"; it saves you having to explain Konfrontasi.
  • "and No. 37 Squadron's overseas and strategic": I prefer "and No. 37 Squadron's was overseas and strategic"
    • Tweaked -- "while" sounded better than "and" to me, and the duties were parallel so does that work just as well? Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forty-two per cent of Hercules flying hours was in support of Australian Army operations.": "were devoted to" (or "supported", but "support" is used a lot in this paragraph).
  • "one of No. 37 Squadron's Hercules was the first Australian strategic transport aircraft to land at Vung Tau. In May 1967, three Hercules of No. 37 Squadron supported": You can avoid both the odd-sounding plural and the repetition with "a No. 37 Squadron Hercules was the first Australian strategic transport aircraft to land at Vung Tau, and three from that squadron supported ... in May 1967"
    • Killed first part -- see edit summary. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following the end of the Vietnam War": at the end of the Vietnam War (since you're talking about the evacuations)
    • Agree, especially since we use "following" three times that para -- done. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As well as participating in military exercises and overseas peacekeeping commitments, the Hercules became well known in the Southern Pacific after being called on for relief following many natural disasters": My preference would be to omit the introductory phrase, unless the peacekeeping commitments deserve more specific mention.
    • Let me think about this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just split this into two sentences; in the longer run it could be expanded into a para on the post-Vietnam service of these aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having remained in service for twenty years and clocked up 147,000 accident-free flying hours": Technically parallel, it will seem nonparallel to many. "After clocking up 147,000 accident-free flying hours over the course of twenty years"
  • "cargoes included kangaroos and sheep to Malaysia": I was going to say "bound for Malaysia", but that might be unintentionally humorous if "bound" sounds like something kangaroos like to do. What were the kangaroos for?
    • All Australian aircraft carry kangaroos - haven't you seen a Qantas plane? I'll let Ian check the source, but I'm pretty sure it would have been some kind of diplomatic gift. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Fraid the source doesn't extrapolate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what a "tanker/transport" is.
  • "1987 Fijian coups d'état": Ugh, that's the actual article title, but note that the first sentence of the article says "1987 Fijian coups" instead. Go with that.
  • "from where it picked up": where it picked up
  • "In May 2012 the Government announced as part of the 2012–13 Budget": "budget". "Government" is a harder call; I recommended lowercasing above because the word followed shortly after "Australian Government"; here, I'd probably go with "Australian Government".
    • Agree -- done. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The common, and defacto formal, name for the national government is the 'Australian Government' (it used to be normally called the 'Commonwealth Government', but this changed about 15 years ago when the PM decided that he preferred 'Australian Government'). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Nick, that was my sense but I didn't know why. Btw, although "US Government" is a phrase thrown around by a lot of people, including people in the US Government :), careful writers will say "the administration", "the state department", etc., except in specific contexts: US government workers, the US Government Printing Office, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were subsequently retired on 30 November that year": were retired on 30 November that year
    • Agree -- done. Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tks mate, a lot of good suggestions there -- will consider the others later, and of course Nick might have an opinion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comments and changes all work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks also from me for the review Dank. The only outstanding issue seems to be what the kangaroos were doing on the aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Crowing alert: even though Nick and I already had a lot of stored knowledge on this topic, I think that considering we effectively whipped up the article in a matter of days, it's pretty damn good -- but considerably better having had a going-over from Dan... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have no problem with finding more to fix at GAN than I would for the same article at FAC, that's the nature of the beast, I think. It's a very good article for a few days work. My question about the kangaroos mainly comes from the phrase "kangaroos and sheep" ... the sheep probably weren't a ceremonial gift, unless they were very special sheep, so the phrase suggests that the kangaroos were for some mysterious mundane purpose. For the record, I'll leave "This purchase did not go ahead, the government instead ordering" alone because I see it a lot from Aussie writers, but the first part seems redundant and nonstandard to me if you just say "but the government did X instead" (and the WP:PLUSING doesn't generally survive FAC, anyway). - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. BritEng seems to be "manoeuvrability". - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Tks for that, will do. Heh, sorry, I misunderstood you earlier, didn't pick up that "Instead the government ordered..." was intended to replace the whole bit. I think you're right about Australian writers -- I know the first part is a bit redundant but somehow it sounds better to me... Anyway not that fussed if you or Nick want to alter to your phrasing. Tks again for a very helpful review, Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise:
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps[edit]

Nick, I added a bit on self-protection under Acquisition, plus I've tried to keep track under Operational Service of who performed maintenance, and I recall you mentioned gathering more info on upgrades. My thought is that once we get enough material for at least a couple of paragraphs, we break out all the maintenance and upgrade material into -- you guessed it -- a Maintenance and Upgrades section! I'm thinking that since you probably have access to more recent magazines than I do, that I take a look at Wilson's Dakota, Hercules and Caribou to cherry pick whatever's worthwhile from there up until it was published in 1990 (acquisition, maintenance and ops-wise) while you see what further info you can find from about 1990 on. I'd like to see if we can get costs for the various models -- hopefully Wilson will include that for the A/E/H models and perhaps you can find out the J costs. Once we've done all that, I think we'd have an A/FA-level article on our hands. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I'd also like to add more on the acquisition of the E and H variants and the disposal of the Es (Wilson should cover both topics); some material on the use of the C-130s to support 3 RAR during the era in which it was a parachute battalion (it was stationed at Sydney so it could regularly train with the C-130s); flesh out the coverage of what the C-130 detachment did during the 2003 Iraq War (we have much more detailed coverage of their limited role in 1991 than their active role in 2003 at present); hopefully add something more explicit on the role of the ADF in fixing the C-130Js; and add some material (if possible) comparing the RAAF's safety record with the type of that of other operators. The only complicating factor is that I'm going to be really busy over this weekend and then out of town next weekend. I agree completely about this being on track for FA, and am finding it really interesting to work on. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry, I'm impressed we got it to GA so quickly (with Dan's help of course). I'll be happy to work on my 90/91WG articles for a bit, and I've just thrown 86WG into the ACR ring, so I may not get to Wilson for a week or two anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a couple of paras on the use of the type during the Vietnam war based on the official history - I'll add a bit more on the evacuation of South Vietnam and Cambodia on the weekend. According to the official history the C-130As continued to be used for supply flights after the C-130Es entered service. Nick-D (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to remove the nose-photo of the C-130H, but the replacement photo is probably more interesting. There are a couple of photos of Australian paratroopers jumping out of a C-130 at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:3rd_Battalion,_Royal_Australian_Regiment , but it's not clear whether it's an Australian or American aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently adding in material from Wilson and other sources, with a focus more on coverage rather than prose quality (though hopefully things aren't too awful). Nick-D (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, I'm not sure if the material on the disposal of the C-130As is too long: Wilson goes into it in great length and it's an amazing story. However, it could be summarized further (I've also left out some of the claims Wilson made about people and organisations involved in this as the matter was before the courts at the time the book was published and I haven't been able to find anything on the eventual results so far; WP:BLP applies) Nick-D (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fascinating, I'd never heard that stuff. Haven't walked through it all of course, I've still got updates to the wing articles to get out of my system -- just now 78 and 81 in tandem, which is hardly surprising given their intertwined history (I've also suddenly decided I'd like to take a crack at 41/42/44 for a change of pace, the last-mentioned first as it's had a decent start thanks in large part to you, so happy to share credit if it goes anywhere once I'm done). I've been further distracted by my first collaboration with Storm, on HMS Nairana (1917), which has been fun. I did have Wilson on order from the Mitchell, so do you have more you want to add and I'll just copyedit for my contribution, or do you want to take a break and I'll do some from it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to finish off adding material from Wilson (probably today). Good-quality articles on the radar wings would be great, though sourcing might be a challenge. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much finished adding material now. After a bit of copy-editing this should be ready for an ACR (there's also now room for more photos). I'm not much of a fan of the subheading titles I added the other day though. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I got on to the AWM mid-April about a few older Herc images they have with "copyright yet to be assessed" or other questionable restrictions, and they've said they'll get back to me once they've dealt with the usual deluge of post-Anzac Day queries, so we'll see what happens there. If you're done for now, I'll try and go through the article over the next couple of nights, copyediting and adding one or two things I've found. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. I'm considering adding this image under a fair use license as it's a historically significant picture which also illustrates the C-130's capabilities, but it might be better to hold off until after the AWM provides advice on other images from this era. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, started. Funny you mention that image... There's another one or two in the series and all had a typo in the caption, using "35 Squadron" when they meant "36 Squadron" -- I mentioned that in passing when querying the copyright of some others and they've fixed that at least... ;-) Yep, I think a FUR for one of those is definitely in order -- I haven't queried copyright for those because what AWM have seems in order to me. So we don't double up, the ones I've asked them to check for possible PD are P00448.137, P00448.138, and P02320.015. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a note this article on the RAAF's options once the C-130Js wear out will need to be consulted in the future - it also appears to have some material on the current status of the fleet. The NLA should have a copy. Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that article wasn't useful, but two others in the same edition were. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I'm about done with my copyedit, adding a snippet re. Tracy, and re-arranging the images per rationale in my last edit summary. The left-right arrangement is only missing an additional image between the C-130E and the Shoalwater Bay pic, which we could try to fill with one of the Vietnam cargo bay shots we spoke of earlier, using a FUR -- WDYT? The only other thing I think we might need before ACR is a slightly longer lead, say an extra para, which would be more appropriate for an article this length. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, though I now note that the photo I suggested isn't actually held by the AWM, and is still owned by an individual, so it may be best to no use it as a courtesy to them. Did you have any luck with responses from the AWM on those three images? I'd suggest using this image of a full evacuation flight - it illustrates the difficult conditions on the aircraft as noted in the article, as well as the capabilities of the C-130 in this role. Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot I hadn't updated -- AWM reports "have attempted to establish an exact copyright for P00448.137 and P00448.138 but unfortunately have not been able to do so at this stage". So I think we go with the one you suggest -- have you done a FUR for an Australian military photo? Not sure I have... Are you happy for me to see about expanding the lead a tad? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added the photo - the upload form is very comprehensive, and the 'CC BY-NC' status of the image really helps (I think). Expanding leads isn't my strong point, so please go ahead. I'd suggest starting with a para summarising the key dates the RAAF acquired and retired aircraft, and then a second para on their operational service. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate, will get on to the lead shortly, and have a rough nom statement in mind for ACR unless you wanted to do it (you can obviously tweak anything I write). Just been rationalising refs -- I think it's good to aim for a maximum of two citations for any given statement if at all possible. There's a set of four at one point under Acquisition -- do you think you could lose any of those without harming the referential integrity? Or perhaps split them between sentences to avoid grouping them all at the end? Only if feasible... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, pls feel free to tweak the lead. N.B. The 600,000 flying hours is simply adding the A, E, and H models times at their retirements. If you know the latest figures for the Js, we could add that in too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just fixed that set of four refs; I agree that having more than two refs for a statement makes it look dodgy (as noted at WP:OVERREF), and also isn't very helpful for readers. The lead looks excellent, and if you've already started on the ACR nomination statement, please go ahead with it ;) - I think that the article is well and truly ready. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great -- the only other thing that came to mind is re. organisation/structure. We discussed a maintenance/upgrade section at one stage and have now incorporated that among the later models subsection, which I think is still a logical place for it. Do you think we should break out disposal into a separate section or subsection, given the quite extensive info re. the A model, and reasonable detail on the H? Does all that really belong under the operational service section? Not saying I think it's a huge deal either way, just wondered what you thought and figured I'd better mention it before we commit ourselves to ACR (and hopefully FAC soon after)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the material on the disposals works best in the operational service section where it follows on from the material on their retirement, but the other option would also be fine with me. I can't find anything reliable on the fates of the C-130Es - according to the usually-reliable but not a RS adf-serials.com six were sold to Pakistan and the others were scrapped, used as trainers or preserved at the RAAF Museum but there are no usable sources on this I can find. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that's fine, let's leave as is and cross it if a reviewer happens to suggest it. Last-last things: 1) just confirming you haven't seen any figures on hours racked up by the Js so far, and 2) you haven't seen a list of serials for the Js (RAAF Museum lists all the A/E/Hs, but it'd draw attention to the Js if we only listed those)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't seen any figures on the hours flown by the C-130Js, or yet found a reliable source for their serial numbers; I imagine that such a source exists for the serial numbers though, and I'll keep looking ahead of the FAC. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_C-130_Hercules_in_Australian_service&oldid=1208551378"